Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Cornelius McADOO, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
As the result of an ongoing investigation, petitioner was required to submit a urine sample for testing. The sample twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids and petitioner was thereafter charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. Contrary to petitioner's claim, the urinalysis testing procedures set forth in 7 NYCRR 1020.4 were properly followed. The chain of custody of the sample was sufficiently established as the correction officer who conducted the test stated that he had possession of it at all times (see Matter of Odome v. Goord, 14 A.D.3d 975, 975-976, 788 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2005] ). The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony of the officers who requested and conducted the test, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Molina v. Selsky, 21 A.D.3d 1238, 1238-1239, 801 N.Y.S.2d 425 [2005]; Matter of Feliciano v. Selsky, 17 A.D.3d 951, 952, 793 N.Y.S.2d 635 [2005] ). In addition, the in camera testimony of the officer familiar with the ongoing investigation indicates that there was a reasonable basis for the test and, given that the determination was not based upon the confidential testimony, there was no need to independently assess the credibility of the confidential information (see Matter of Hemphill v. Selsky, 26 A.D.3d 548, 549, 808 N.Y.S.2d 503 [2006] ). Petitioner's remaining claims have not been preserved for our review.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 14, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)